‘Intended Use’ Guidance Disappoints Stakeholders: Analysis

Share

Attorney Patricia Kaufman says a new FDA final rule amending the “intended use” regulations for drugs and medical devices “may come as a disappointment to those who were hoping that FDA would provide more clarity in its regulations regarding permissible activities. However, it is not surprising that FDA is rejecting ‘meticulous specificity,’ given the complexity of the issues involved.”

Kaufman says firms must continue to diligently consider on a case-by-case basis the effect that their design, marketing, and distribution activities could have on their products’ intended use.

She writes that the final rule is essentially the same as a 9/2020 proposed rule except that it adds language to the proposed device regulation that clarifies its applicability to devices that are granted marketing authorization or are 510(k)-exempt, in addition to those that are approved and cleared. The final rule withdraws portions of the 2017 final rule that was stayed indefinitely in 2018 after the agency received significant complex, substantive criticisms from stakeholders. The new final rule is effective 9/1.

“The importance of the final rule lies in the fact that a product’s intended use forms the basis for FDA’s enforcement activity in connection with off-label promotion, that is, whether firms are marketing their products in a manner that encourages a use other than that for which FDA approved it,” Kaufman writes. “The industry was hoping to gain some greater certainty with the amendments as to what will and will not make them vulnerable to FDA finding a new intended use. FDA opted instead for broad flexibility in light of the various fact-specific patterns of each situation.”

Read more